Maritime law expert Jason Chuah of Universiti Malaya said Putrajaya’s decision should be viewed in light of the risks faced by crews operating in a volatile region.

“To my mind, it is easy to say we do not negotiate when the right of transit is international law and our given right.

“But negotiating does not mean we’re saying the right of transit is not an international legal right. We’re simply taking a humane approach to get very vulnerable seafarers home,” he told FMT.

Chuah said the diplomatic efforts played a key role in resolving immediate operational risks, especially for national oil and gas firm Petronas.

“If not for diplomatic efforts, I fear the Ocean Thunder would still be stuck in the Persian Gulf,” he said, referring to the oil tanker chartered by a Petronas firm.

This comes amid wider debate over how countries are responding to tensions around the strategic waterway, a key global oil and liquefied natural gas route.

Singapore had decided not to engage in talks with Iran for safe passage of its ships or a toll rate in the Strait of Hormuz, saying this was in line with its principle of not taking sides.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said it was entirely within the republic’s right to do so.

Chuah said Malaysia’s approach reflected a pragmatic response to immediate risks, particularly when seafarers were exposed to uncertainty at sea.

However, he cautioned that the move could carry legal and geopolitical implications if it becomes a longer-term policy.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, transit through international straits is meant to be non-discriminatory.

Accepting a preferential fee or exemption that is not extended to other nations could raise questions over that principle.

“This creates a precedent where other nations might challenge Malaysia’s own maritime rights,” Chuah said.

He said such arrangements could also draw scrutiny from Western partners, particularly if seen as conferring indirect benefits in a sanctioned environment.